coastalcph/lex_glue huggingface dataset:
4.  The applicants, a married couple, were born in 1952 and 1954 respectively and live in Piliscsaba.
5.  On 7 December 2001 the first applicant was deliberately shot by one of his colleagues and suffered serious injuries making him disabled.
6.  On an unspecified date in 2004, the first applicant and his family (including his wife, the second applicant) brought an action in damages against the first applicant’s employer. On 14 June 2005 the president of the Pest County Labour Court ordered the priority treatment of the case.
7.  On 19 January 2006 the Pest County Labour Court found for the applicants in an interim judgment establishing the well-foundedness of the legal basis of the claim. The first instance interim judgment was upheld by the Pest County Court on 5 January 2007.
8.  The exact compensation amount to be paid by the employer was decided by a judgment of the Pest County Labour Court on 9 November 2010. The decision was upheld and partly amended by the final judgment of the Pest County Court adopted on 4 May 2011.
5.  The applicant was born in 1985 and lives in Sokołów Podlaski.
6.  On 8 April 2009 the applicant was arrested and remanded in custody. He was charged with, inter alia, murder, attempted murder, and illegal possession of firearms.
7.  On 2 December 2011 the Ostrołęka Regional Court convicted the applicant of battery and attempted murder and sentenced him to twelve years’ imprisonment.
8.  On 25 October 2012 the Białystok Court of Appeal upheld the first‑instance judgment.
9.  On 8 November 2013 the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant’s cassation appeal.
10.  On 10 April 2009 the Czerwony Bór Prison Penitentiary Commission (“the commission”) classified the applicant as a “dangerous detainee”. It considered that it was necessary to place him in a cell for dangerous detainees as he had been charged with murder committed with the use of firearms. The commission referred to the applicant’s “personal circumstances and serious lack of moral character”. The applicant did not appeal against the decision.
11.  Between 7 July 2009 and 7 January 2010, the commission reviewed its decision every three months. In renewing its decision to classify the applicant as a “dangerous detainee”, the commission reiterated the same reasoning, which read as follows:
“His characteristics, personal circumstances, serious lack of moral character and [the fact of] being charged with offences committed with the use of a firearm, pose a serious danger to society and to the security of the remand centre.”
12.  The reasoning given on 5 April, 30 June and 30 September 2011 differed slightly in that gave a detailed description of the offences with which the applicant had been charged as the grounds for extending the regime. The commission referred to the offences of murder and three attempts to commit murder with the use of a firearm.
13.  The applicant lodged an appeal against the decision of 30 September 2011.
14.  On 13 December 2011 the Białystok Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal, holding that the decision had been lawful.
15.  On 29 December 2011 the commission extended the application of the “dangerous detainee” regime to the applicant for the eleventh time. The reasoning given was the same as in the decisions of 2009.
16.  On 29 March 2012 the commission lifted the “dangerous detainee” regime in respect of the applicant. It considered that, on the basis of the relevant documentation and the assessment of the applicant’s behaviour, he no longer posed a danger to society or to the security of the remand centre.
5.  The applicant was born in 1966 and is detained in Stargard Szczeciński.
6.  The applicant is a habitual offender. He was arrested on an unspecified date on suspicion of uttering threats. He was subsequently convicted as charged and sentenced to three years and six months’ imprisonment. He was first detained in Nowogard Prison and subsequently in Goleniów Prison.
7.  On 7 September 2011 the applicant’s cell was searched. During the search the prison officers found a note entitled “Protest letter” signed by 135 prisoners. The prisoners stated their opposition to the forthcoming changes to the Code of Execution of Criminal Sentences affecting, in particular, the possibility of shopping during prison visits. The letter was confiscated by the authorities.
8.  On 8 September 2011 the Nowogard Prison Penitentiary Commission imposed on the applicant the so-called “dangerous detainee” regime. The commission held that the applicant was one of the organisers of a planned collective remonstrance in Nowogard Prison, and that it was therefore necessary to isolate him from other prisoners.
9.  The applicant appealed against that decision. He submitted that he was not the organiser of the protest but merely one of 140 prisoners who had signed the letter.
10.  On 29 November 2011 the Szczecin Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal. The court held that the decision had been lawful.
11.  On an unknown date the applicant was transferred to Goleniów Prison.
12.  On 6 December 2011 the Goleniów Prison Penitentiary Commission extended the imposition of the “dangerous detainee” regime, holding that the applicant represented a serious threat to the community and should be kept in a solitary cell. The applicant appealed.
13.  On 31 January 2012 the Szczecin Regional Court quashed the decision and remitted the case to the commission. The court held that only the original decision to impose the regime of 8 September 2011 had been justified. The following one taken on 6 December 2011 had not indicated any new circumstances justifying the continuing application of the regime and its reasoning had been scarce. The court noted that several months had elapsed since the applicant had signed the protest letter and the suppositions regarding the allegedly planned collective remonstrance of the prisoners had been not confirmed.
14.  On 14 February 2012 the Goleniów Prison Penitentiary Commission decided to lift the “dangerous detainee” regime. The regime was imposed on the applicant for a total of five months and seven days.
5.  The applicant was born in 1987 and is detained in Lublin.
6.  On 1 December 2005 the applicant was arrested and remanded in custody. In 2006 he was convicted of three counts of battery and robbery and received prison sentences ranging from two to four years. On 28 November 2006 the Lublin Regional Court imposed a cumulative sentence for four criminal convictions.
7.  On 5 November 2010 the Opole Lubelskie Prison Penitentiary Commission imposed on the applicant the so-called “dangerous detainee” regime. The commission held that the applicant had been the leader of or an active participant in a planned collective remonstrance in Opole Lubelskie Prison (Article 88a § 2 (2a) of the Code of Execution of Criminal Sentences), as the detainees refused to accept food provided by the prison authorities. The authorities learned that the detainees were planning another collective protest for 11 November 2010. The commission also considered that the applicant was particularly depraved.
8.  On 18 January 2011 the Opole Lubelskie Prison Penitentiary Commission rejected an appeal lodged by the applicant and dismissed his request for leave to examine the appeal outside the statutory time-limit.
9.  Subsequently, the applicant was transferred to the Lublin Remand Centre.
10.  On 3 February 2011 the Lublin Remand Centre Penitentiary Commission reviewed and upheld the decision to apply the regime to the applicant, considering that he posed a serious threat to the security of the detention centre. The applicant appealed.
11.  On 4 April 2011 the Lublin Regional Court dismissed the appeal. The court referred to the reasons given in the decision of 5 November 2010, holding that the decision had been lawful and justified.
12.  On 3 March 2011 the applicant lodged a complaint with the Lublin Regional Inspectorate of Prisons. He complained that he was having difficulties in accessing educational activities in the Lublin Remand Centre. The authorities dismissed the complaint, holding that educational activities were not organised for dangerous prisoners.
13.  On an unspecified date in 2011 the applicant notified the police of his allegedly unlawful classification as a “dangerous detainee” on 5 November 2010. He claimed that the Opole Lubelskie Prison authorities had exceeded their powers in imposing the regime on him. On 29 April 2011 the Opole Lubelskie District Prosecutor refused to open an investigation in the case, holding that no offence had been committed.
14.  On 28 April 2011 the Lublin Remand Centre Penitentiary Commission revoked its decision to classify the applicant as a “dangerous detainee”. It considered that the applicant’s behaviour had improved and that he no longer posed a threat to the security of the remand centre.
5.  The applicant was born in 1948 and lives in Yerevan. She is unemployed and receives state welfare benefit.
6.  On 10 October 1991 the Republic of Armenia Executive Committee of the Mashtots District Council of People’s Deputies decided to allocate a flat to the applicant in a building in Yerevan, which was to be constructed by Kanaz Aluminium Factory (hereafter - the Factory).
7.  It appears that the foundation of the future building was laid but, as the Soviet Union collapsed, the construction of the building was stopped.
8.  On an unspecified date the Factory went bankrupt and a liquidation commission (hereafter - the commission) was set up.
9.  It appears that on 8 May 2007 the applicant lodged a request with the commission seeking to be allocated a flat or to receive money equivalent to its value.
10.  On 10 May 2007 the head of the commission rejected the applicant’s request on the ground that the building, of which one flat was to be allocated to the applicant, had not been constructed due to the lack of financial means. He stated that the Factory had carried out construction activities with direct financial support from the Soviet Government and that after the Soviet Union collapsed it had to stop construction projects for lack of financial means.
11.  On 13 June 2007 the applicant, who was not represented by a lawyer, lodged a claim with the Arabkir and Kanaker-Zeytun District Court of Yerevan seeking to oblige the Factory to allocate a flat to her or provide her compensation equivalent to its value.
12.  On 19 July 2007 the District Court dismissed the applicant’s claim on the same grounds as those relied on by the head of the commission. It also found that the Factory had been declared bankrupt and had no legal successor as such.
13.  On 23 July 2007 the applicant, still unrepresented, lodged an appeal against this judgment.
14.  On 15 October 2007 the Civil Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s appeal and upheld the judgment of the District Court.
15.  The applicant did not lodge an appeal on points of law with the Court of Cassation. She alleges that she was unable to do so as she could not afford to hire an advocate authorised to act before that court, whose services were costly. She further claims that she applied to many lawyers with a request to provide her with free legal services as regards her application to the Court of Cassation. However, her requests were turned down on the ground that the issue concerned an apartment and legal aid was not available for this type of a dispute.
5.  The applicant was born in 1962 and lives in Chişinău.
6.  On 21 August 2009 the applicant was arrested and charged with the offence of producing and putting into circulation counterfeit money. Since then he has remained remanded in custody pending criminal investigation and trial. The detention warrants were prolonged every month initially and every three months once the case had reached the Ialoveni District Court. Each time the reasons given for the detention were that the applicant had been accused of a serious offence punishable with imprisonment of up to fifteen years, that the criminal case was complex and that, if released, he might interfere with the investigation or collude with other co-accused, or abscond or re-offend.
7.  The last two extensions of the applicant’s detention before the lodging of the present application took place on unspecified dates in May and August 2011. The applicant argued that there was no risk of his interfering with the investigation since all the witnesses and the parties to the proceedings had already been heard and all the evidence had been examined by the court. He also submitted that there were no reasons to believe that he would abscond or re-offend and he agreed to be placed under house arrest if he could not be released. The applicant also argued that according to Article 186 § 8 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, once the case had been referred to a court, the detention could not last longer than six months, other than in exceptional cases.
8.  The Ialoveni District Court dismissed the applicant’s arguments and, relying on the same grounds as before, extended his detention for a further three months. The court stated that the case was exceptional within the meaning of Article 186 § 9 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The decisions of May and August 2011 contain similar wording. The applicant’s appeals against them were rejected by the Court of Appeal.
9.  On 30 January 2012 the applicant was convicted and sentenced to seven years’ imprisonment. The Court has not been informed about the final outcome of the criminal proceedings.
5.  The applicant was born in 1980 and lives in Pleven.
6.  On 25 April 2012 he was arrested in Sofia and subsequently charged with the unlawful possession of firearms and ammunition. He remained in detention on remand throughout the pre-trial proceedings. Eventually he entered into a plea agreement with the prosecution, acknowledging that he had committed the offence he had been charged with and accepting a suspended sentence of two years’ imprisonment.
7.  The plea agreement was approved at a court hearing before the Sofia District Court on 7 June 2012. The court’s decision was final. At the end of the hearing, at 5.16 p.m., the court ordered the discontinuation of the applicant’s pre-trial detention.
8.  After the hearing the applicant was brought to the Sofia Investigative Service, where his pre-trial detention was formally discontinued at about 7 p.m. However, he was not released but was instead taken to a police station, where he remained throughout the night and the next day. On the morning of 9 June 2012 he was transferred to the city of Pleven where, by an order issued at 12.10 p.m., he was once again formally placed in police custody. That measure was taken in the context of another set of criminal proceedings against the applicant which had been instigated in April 2012. On 10 June 2012 the investigator in charge of that case brought charges against the applicant in connection with another count of unlawful possession of firearms.
9.  In the proceedings before the Court, the Government submitted an order dated 8 June 2012, issued by the investigator in charge of the case in Pleven and requiring that the applicant be taken by the police to appear before her in order to have charges brought against him. The order referred, in particular, to Article 71 §§ 1, 2 and 3 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (see paragraph 12 below) and, by way of justifying the need to bring the applicant by force, stated that there was a risk of his absconding. The Government explained that by the time that order had been received by the police in Sofia, it had become impossible to organise the applicant’s transfer to Pleven the same day. That is why the applicant had been kept in the police station overnight and was only transported to Pleven the next day, 9 June 2012.
4.  The applicant was born in 1967 and lives in Kalush.
5. On 4 November 2006 the applicant’s daughter, Ms S.V., born in 1997, and two other individuals, Ms L.M. and Ms V.K., stayed overnight at a private house. On the morning of 5 November 2006 S.V., L.M. and V.K. were found dead in the room where they had been sleeping.
6.  On an unspecified date after the incident a committee composed of five employees of the gas company conducted an inquiry into the incident and drew up a report (“the internal inquiry report”). According to the report, gas company employees visited the scene on the morning of 5 November 2006 and observed that the room where the accident had occurred had a window with a vent for ventilation, but that it was closed at the time of examination. All the gas equipment in the house was in good working order and the heater’s flue had adequate draught. The report went on to note that on the night of the incident Mrs M.T. had turned on the gas heater in the room where S.V., L.M. and V.K. were sleeping, closed the door and left the room and the gas heater unsupervised. The committee took the view that the incident had been caused by a strong wind on the night of the incident and M.T.’s failure to check the heater.
7.  Between 14 November 2006 and 24 May 2012 the prosecutor’s office refused eleven times to institute criminal proceedings in respect of the death. All those decisions were overruled by supervising prosecutors or the courts as being premature owing to the incompleteness of the investigation and the need to conduct additional investigative measures.
8.  On 25 January 2013, following the entry into force in November 2012 of the new Code of Criminal Procedure (see paragraph 11 below), a criminal investigation was initiated into the actions of the employees of the gas company on suspicion of neglect of official duties in connection with the death of the applicant’s daughter. An entry to that effect was made in the Unified Register of Pre-Trial Investigations.
9.  Thereafter the police twice discontinued the criminal investigation, on 21 December 2013 and on 15 December 2014, for lack of corpus delicti in the actions of the gas company’s employees. Those decisions were overruled on 3 February 2014 and 19 August 2015 respectively.
4.  The applicants were born in 1975 and 1976 respectively and are currently serving their prison sentence in the Tekirdağ Prison.
5.  On 13 April 1998 the applicants were arrested on suspicion of membership of an illegal organisation. On 14 and 16 April 1998 respectively, the first applicant gave detailed police statements in the absence of a lawyer. On 15 April 1998, the second applicant was also interrogated by the police in the absence of a lawyer, and he used his right to remain silent.
6.  On 19 April 1998 both applicants were examined at the Istanbul Forensic Medicine Institute. According to the medical report, there was no trace of ill-treatment on their bodies.
7.  On the same day, still in the absence of a lawyer, the applicants were brought before the public prosecutor and subsequently the investigating judge. Before the public prosecutor and the investigating judge, both applicants gave statements, and the second applicant complained that he had been ill-treated in police custody. The investigating judge remanded the applicants in custody.
8.  On 30 April 1998 the Public Prosecutor at the Istanbul State Security Court filed an indictment with that court and accused the applicants of carrying out activities for the purpose of bringing about the secession of part of the national territory. He sought the death penalty under Article 125 of the Criminal Code.
9.  On 4 May 1998 the Istanbul State Security Court held a preparatory hearing. It decided that the applicants’ detention on remand should be continued. Between 6 July 1998 and 26 May 1999 the Istanbul State Security Court, composed of two civilian judges and a military judge, held seven more hearings. On 18 June 1999 the constitution was amended and the military judge sitting on the bench of the Istanbul State Security Court was replaced by a civilian judge. Thereafter, the court held twenty more hearings. During the hearings, the applicants alleged that they were ill-treated under police custody.
10.  On 24 September 2003 the Istanbul State Security Court, which was composed of three civilian judges, found the applicants guilty as charged and sentenced them to life imprisonment under Article 125 of the Criminal Code. In convicting the applicants, the State Security Court had regard to the applicants’ statements to the police, the public prosecutor and the investigating judge respectively.
11.  On 24 March 2004 the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment of the Istanbul State Security Court. This decision was deposited with the Registry of the first instance court on 22 April 2004.
4.  The applicant was born in 1950 and lives in Vienna.
5.  On 29 January 2004 the applicant applied for rent allowance (Mietbeihilfe) under the Vienna Social Welfare Act (Wiener Sozialhilfegesetz).
6.  On 13 July 2004 the Vienna Municipal Authority (Magistrat der Stadt Wien) dismissed the applicant’s request, holding that the applicant was not eligible for rent allowance as his income exceeded the statutory limit (Richtsatzüberschreitung).
7.  The applicant appealed and complained that the Municipal Authority had failed to take into account his maintenance obligations towards his two sons.
8.  On 10 August 2004 the Vienna Regional Government (Amt der Wiener Landesregierung) dismissed the appeal, holding that maintenance obligations were, according to the Administrative Court’s case-law, not to be considered as income-reducing, as long as no enforcement proceedings were instituted against the applicant’s income.
9.  On 6 October 2004 the Constitutional Court granted the applicant’s request for legal aid in order to file a complaint against the Regional Government’s decision.
10.  On 8 November 2004 the applicant filed a complaint with the Constitutional Court, claiming in essence that the Regional Government had wrongly interpreted the Administrative Court’s case-law as regards the non‑consideration of the applicant’s maintenance obligations.
11.  On 1 March 2005 the Constitutional Court declined to deal with the applicant’s complaint, holding that it did not raise any questions of constitutional law and transferred the case to the Administrative Court.
12.  On 11 May 2005 the applicant submitted his amended complaint to the Administrative Court.
13.  On 23 February 2009 the Administrative Court dismissed the applicant’s complaint as unfounded. Referring to its case-law, it held that the applicant had failed to argue that he was in a state of emergency due to enforcement proceedings being conducted in connection to his maintenance obligations. It was therefore not unlawful that the Regional Government had refrained from taking into account the applicant’s maintenance payments when assessing his eligibility for rent allowance.
14.  This decision was served on the applicant’s counsel on 13 March 2009.